For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
georgelicks
So sad to see such a classic album no charting at all on both UK or US Top 200 albums chart, it's a real shame and such a waste, unpardonable for both ABKCO and The Rolling Stones.
Quote
georgelicks
So sad to see such a classic album no charting at all on both UK or US Top 200 albums chart, it's a real shame and such a waste, unpardonable for both ABKCO and The Rolling Stones.
Quote
philrock90
These 50th sets are a waste
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
philrock90
These 50th sets are a waste
A real waste, I think too. Maybe ABKCO just didn't get the point concerning WHY other big artists, Dylan, Bowie, Beatles, etc, does so many 50th anniversary releases, as of late......it's to save the recordings from being allowed to release by any obscure label, due to the copyright-thing. It would make a lot more sense to release what's out there, among traders and bootlegers; like Live´r Than You'll Ever Be, 1969-1971 outtakes, etc. I understand that everybody with a LP -or CD - making-machine can release and sell those recordings by now, no?
Quote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).
All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).
All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...
Thanks for explaining more clearly, retired dog
In other words, in addition of buying a record-presser, I'd also have to pay lawyers and other experts along the way....even Jagger and Keith!
Hmmm....the expenses would absorb the profits for me; the whole operation of mine would cave in, Jeez, what cynical and bureaucratic times we're living in
Quote
ab
Got the Let It Bleed and brown Band super deluxes yesterday. Both albums are sacred tomes.
The LIB set has 2 180g LPs (mono and stereo) and hybrid SACDs (mono and stereo) of the album, a contemporary 7" single with a very important non-LP A-side, a poster, 3 prints and an 80-page hardcover book. No dice, marbles, pins, or scarves. Currently goes for about $100.
The Band set has a 2x180g 45 rpm LPs of the album (new stereo mix), 2 CDs of the album (new stereo mix) with 13 bonus tracks (6 previously unreleased) and their Woodstock set, a Blu-ray with new stereo and 5.1 mixes of the album and a documentary, a 7" single of 2 album tracks, 3 prints, and a 32-40 page softcover book. No silly tchochkes either. Currently goes for about $150.
Both are HEAVY on redundancy (4 versions and 2 mixes each of the albums they celebrate) and seem overpriced. But at least I can find a way to justify the Stones' pricing: $15 per LP and SACD, $10 for the single, and $30 for the book.
The Band one? No way. $30 for the LPs, $20 for the CDs, $25 for the Blu-ray, $10 for the single, and maybe $15 for the book. Should not be charging more than about $100.
The big difference is that there's an effort on the Band set to provide some additional content.
Quote
Spud
Mt issue is simply why can't I just buy the bloody stereo LP for twenty quid ?
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).
All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...
Thanks for explaining more clearly, retired dog
In other words, in addition of buying a record-presser, I'd also have to pay lawyers and other experts along the way....even Jagger and Keith!
Hmmm....the expenses would absorb the profits for me; the whole operation of mine would cave in, Jeez, what cynical and bureaucratic times we're living in
Although it would be interesting to hear about some actual sales figures of these public domain releases...
Quote
Bashlets
Maybe it’s my aging ears but I thought the sound on this was really good. Better than 2002 I guess is up for debate but I cranked up both the vinyl and stereo sacd and danced the whole way through. Yup, caved for the $100 box. I’m usually a pretty logical guy but with the stones logic goes out the window and I purchase purely on emotion. Been that way since I was 10 and saw the stones on Dick Cavett show in 1972. It’s an illness and addiction that will last until my dying breath.
Quote
jloweQuote
retired_dogQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).
All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...
Thanks for explaining more clearly, retired dog
In other words, in addition of buying a record-presser, I'd also have to pay lawyers and other experts along the way....even Jagger and Keith!
Hmmm....the expenses would absorb the profits for me; the whole operation of mine would cave in, Jeez, what cynical and bureaucratic times we're living in
Although it would be interesting to hear about some actual sales figures of these public domain releases...
It would indeed but I guess there is a bit of a niche market out there...particularly in regards to jazz and blues unreleased or out of copyright material.
I got this from a Hoffman Music Forum thread,in regards to Public Domain issues, my comments in brackets:
1. No money goes to the (original)label. (In the Stones case, ABKCO Records. Oh dear!)
2. No money goes to the recording artists or their Estates (Well, The Stones hardly need the money do they)
3. It encourages 2nd rate product (possible but Wax Time label in Spain as reprted in the thread seem to be delivering quality)
4. It encourages more skirting of the legal owners of the recorded product (true, but the owners have had 50 to 70 plus years to maximise their initial investment)
5. It discourages output of similar material from the actual master tape holders (again the thread quotes examples. Sam Cooke (RCA), Miles Davis (Columbia) whereby public domain releases actually got the original label owners to get more pro active with their Artists catalogues, so the fans ultimately benefit).
I suppose the big issue is that of Copyright periods, its purpose, obligation, benefit etc.
Not just music, but literature, film , TV Radio broadcasts etc.
Quote
Erik_SnowQuote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).
All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...
Thanks for explaining more clearly, retired dog
In other words, in addition of buying a record-presser, I'd also have to pay lawyers and other experts along the way....even Jagger and Keith!
Hmmm....the expenses would absorb the profits for me; the whole operation of mine would cave in, Jeez, what cynical and bureaucratic times we're living in
Quote
The SicilianQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
retired_dog
[...] there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).
All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...
Thanks for explaining more clearly, retired dog
In other words, in addition of buying a record-presser, I'd also have to pay lawyers and other experts along the way....even Jagger and Keith!
Hmmm....the expenses would absorb the profits for me; the whole operation of mine would cave in, Jeez, what cynical and bureaucratic times we're living in
Back in 2011 the musicians won a copyright extension for 20 more years for royalties to at least the year 2033.
From The Guardian (Sept.12,2011)
[Musicians win copyright extension in court]
Quote
retired_dogQuote
Erik_SnowQuote
philrock90
These 50th sets are a waste
A real waste, I think too. Maybe ABKCO just didn't get the point concerning WHY other big artists, Dylan, Bowie, Beatles, etc, does so many 50th anniversary releases, as of late......it's to save the recordings from being allowed to release by any obscure label, due to the copyright-thing. It would make a lot more sense to release what's out there, among traders and bootlegers; like Live´r Than You'll Ever Be, 1969-1971 outtakes, etc. I understand that everybody with a LP -or CD - making-machine can release and sell those recordings by now, no?
As I understand it, the copyright of unreleased recordings always expire 50 years from the end of the year they are recorded, so it's not exactly 50 year after the recording date. That's why many of these copyright extension releases usually appear in December or around that time, in particular if they are streaming or Youtube only. And didn't ABKCO release some 1969 shows like San Diego on some legal US download platform already? I seem to recall a thread here or in the Hot Stuff section from a while ago. And with unreleased compositions like Blood Red Wine it's even more complicated - while recording artists and record companies are out of the game after 50 years, there's still the authors/composers whose copyright usually expires 75 years after their death and their respective publishing companies (ABKCO again in this case).
All in all, it's still a bit of a minefield and not as easy as it may look at first sight to become an "independent Stones archive entrepreneur"... You have to know exactly what you're doing and know this legal stuff in detail - otherwise you're facing serious trouble...